New Test. Stud. 53, pp. 114129.

Printed in the United Kingdom 2007 Cambridge University Press

DOI:10.1017/S0028688507000070

Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews

S COTT D . MACKI E
Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91182, USA

Hebrews is addressed to a community whose waning commitment may lead to a

complete abandonment of their Christian identity. In response, the author crafts
an imaginative and powerful exhortation that centers on Jesus identity as the Son
of God. The author first dramatizes the Sons exaltation, emphasizing the Fathers
declaration of Jesus sonship, the Sons reciprocal confession of the Fatherhood of
God, and the Sons conferral of family membership upon the recipients. The recip-
ients are then called upon to participate in this pattern of mutual familial confes-
sion in two strategic hortatory passages: 4.1416 and 10.1925. These two
exhortations to confess Jesus as the Son of God are intended to bring a halt to their
wavering commitment and solidify their identity as siblings of the Son.

That the author of Hebrews crafted his word of exhortation to address

what he perceived as a real crisis facing a specific community of believers is
apparent given both the pervasive paraenetic orientation of the epistle and the
severity of the warnings issued (see esp. 6.48; 10.2631). A number of suggestions
concerning the source and nature of the crisis have been offered, including per-
secution, troubled consciences resulting from post-baptismal sin, an absence of
cultic observance, a loss of honor, or simply a general waning of commitment.1
Accompanying a great number of these diagnoses is the proposition that the
members of the community were considering a return to Judaism. An even greater
number have identified the authors high priest Christology as the focal point of
his hortatory response to this imminent crisis, however perceived. While this
majority opinion concerning the problem and solution has its obvious merits,
appreciation for the authors Son of God Christology and its role in his hortatory
strategy have suffered relative neglect. This paper hopes to alleviate this neglect
by focusing on an overlooked aspect of the authors sonship Christology: the close
relationship of his Son of God Christology and the communitys confession of
Jesus sonship.
The starting point of the authors Son of God Christology is his dramatic
portrayal of the Fathers declaration of Jesus sonship, an event occurring in the

1 See R. W. Johnson, Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical
Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 209; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001)
114 1820, for a concise chart of the various propositions.
 Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews 115

beginning of his rendering of the Sons exaltation in the heavenly sanctuary (1.5).
Corresponding to the divine declaration of 1.5 is the enactment of Jesus recipro-
cal confession of the fatherhood of God, presented shortly thereafter in 2.1213.
The paraenetic corollary of this sonship Christology also emerges within the Sons
confession in 2.1213. Interwoven within this same confession is an implicit con-
ferral of family membership upon the recipients. Furthermore, numerous
instances of the language of belonging and identification appear in the context
surrounding this bestowal (2.518). This language of belonging and identification,
the Sons conferral of family membership, and the pattern of reciprocative famil-
ial confessions exchanged between Father and Son in 1.5 and 2.1213, all directly
lead to and inform the two most important hortatory passages in the epistle,
4.1416 and 10.1925. In these two passages the heavenly sanctuary is invoked, and
the recipients are called upon to participate in the aforementioned drama by
means of entry language (4.16; 10.19, 22). In response to the Sons conferral of
family membership, the siblings of the Son (2.11, 14, 17) are exhorted to vocalize
their commitment to and identification with the Son. This reading assumes the
presence of a more general, yet nonetheless critical, threat to the commitment of
the recipients. The sacral act of confession and identification commended by the
author should bring a halt to their waning commitment, and solidify their resolve
to publicly confess and identify with the Son of God and his family (3.16; 10.2631;
12.111; 13.1316).2

A Liturgical Drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary

Recent interpretive attention to Hebrews has occasionally focused on the

possibility that significant portions of the authors word of exhortation should be
construed as liturgical invocations of a drama occurring in a symbolic universe,
namely the heavenly sanctuary. Most notably, John Dunnill and Luke Timothy
Johnson have shown the value and necessity of understanding Hebrews as a
liturgy, a symbolic action in the sacred sphere.3 Dunnill further suggests this
symbolic action requires the development of ways of reading suitable for par-

2 H. W. Attridge, God in Hebrews: Urging Children to Heavenly Glory, in The Forgotten God:
Perspectives in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Paul J. Achtemeier (ed. A. A. Das and F. J.
Matera; Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2002) 197209, observes the dialogical
nature of the epistle, deeming it the most creative theological work of this complex text
(204). However, he fails to develop the hortatory purpose motivating the Father/Son dia-
logue.
3 J. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 75; Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1992) 261. L. T. Johnson, The Scriptural World of Hebrews, Int 73.3
(2003) 23750, notes that literary compositions, after all, do not simply report on the world
that produces them; they also produce a world (238). See also C. R. Koester, Hebrews (AB 36;
New York: Doubleday, 2001) 201.
116 scott d. mackie

ticipation in such an action.4 The authors inculcation of a drama in the Heavenly

Sanctuary would appear to encourage such participation. This interpretive model
is of obvious benefit to understanding chs. 9 and 10, which are characterized by
their vivid report of the cultic events occurring in the heavenly sanctuary. It is
equally profitable when applied to two passages in the first two chapters of the
epistle, specifically 1.513 and 2.1213, where the same heavenly milieu provides
the dramatic backdrop to the exaltation of the Son. So also in 4.1416 and 10.1925,
two passages exhorting the recipients to enter the heavenly sanctuary and par-
ticipate in the sacral drama through the act of confession.
Perhaps the most distinctive element apparent in the first two chapters is the
direct speech placed by the author on the lips of the main actors the Father and
the Son. These direct speeches impart a dramatic atmosphere to the proceed-
ings.5 That the first words to issue from the mouths of these actors are mutual con-
fessions of familial relatedness is proof of their import. Furthermore, these mutual
confessions utilize a subtle dramatic device aimed at drawing the recipients per-
sonally into the drama of the Sons exaltation, as the language switches in 1.5b and
2.13 from direct to indirect address, from second person pronouns to third person
pronouns. Participation in the symbolic universe is thereby implicitly extended to
the recipients.

The Fathers Declaration of Jesus Sonship

Our proposed liturgical drama begins in 1.5, where the two pre-eminent
monarchical sonship texts of the OT, Ps 2.7 and 2 Sam 7.14, are presented as
proclamations from the very mouth of God: ei\pevn . . . uiJov~ mou ei\ suv, ejgw;
shvmeron gegevnnhkav se; kai; pavlin: ejgw; e[somai aujtw/` eij~ patevra, kai; aujto;~
e[stai moi eij~ uiJovn.6 This forthright declaration of Jesus sonship develops the
final theme of the exordium (1.14), where Jesus is said to have inherited an
unspecified more excellent name (1.4, o{sw/ diaforwvteron par aujtou;~
keklhronovmhken o[noma). The prominent uiJov~ / pathvr terminology and familial
imagery in 1.5 strongly suggest that the unspecified name of 1.4 is Son;7 it also

4 Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, 122.

5 Cf. the similar introductions to divine address in Ezekiel the Tragedian 1.95, 115, 131. However,
these passages are generally viewed as later editorial insertions. They are omitted from the
critical text and translation of H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1983).
6 2 Sam 7.1114 and Ps 2.12 are used as Messianic proof texts in 4QFlorilegium (4Q174).
7 For a dissenting opinion, see G. H. Guthrie, Hebrews Use of the Old Testament: Recent
Trends in Research, Currents in Biblical Research 1.2 (2003) 27194. Focusing on the context
of the second quotation, 2 Sam 7.14 (especially the preceding verse, 7.13: He shall build a
house for me for my name [tw/` ojnovmativ mou], and I will establish his throne forever), Guthrie
 Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews 117

ensures that no one will miss the authors central point: the declaration of Jesus
sonship by God the Father is the pre-eminent moment in the exaltation drama.8
Furthermore, the presence of the recipients in this drama may be inferred
through a transition in address, as the Son is first addressed in the second person
in 1.5a, and then in the third person in 1.5b. The principal actor in this scene, God
the Father, may be envisioned as turning towards those in attendance recipients
included and while gesturing towards the Son, he proclaims: Jesus is my Son!

The Sons Confession of the Father and Conferral of Family

Membership Upon the Recipients

The dramatic milieu of the Sons heavenly exaltation is revisited in 2.1213.

As with the first portion of the drama (and the entire catena 1.513), the author
places Scripture in the mouth of the principal actor, thus imparting ancient
authority to the dramatic speech. And, as before, the first words to flow from the
principal actors mouth are an unreserved confession of familial relatedness: in
this case, Jesus the Son confesses the Fatherhood of God. The presence of the
recipients is also inferred here, as the Son brings the name of God to the public.9
First, Ps 22.22 comes to life in the declaration: ajpaggelw` to; o[nomav sou toi`~
ajdelfoi`~ mou, ejn mevsw/ ejkklhsiva~ uJmnhvsw (2.12). Notably, the author replaces
the more mundane dihgevomai (to tell, relate) of the LXX with the vivid verb
ajpaggevllw (announce), a term consonant with Jesus earthly ministry.10 The

contends that the unspecified superior name of Heb 1.4 is not to be understood as an allu-
sion to the title Son, but rather an honor conferred by God on the Messiah as the Davidic
heir, at the establishment of his throne, and a designator connoting Gods identification with
Messiahs building of Gods house (274). While this suggestion resonates well with the
Christology of Heb 3.16, in the immediate context the authors chief concern is to establish
Jesus divine sonship, as indicated by the conspicuous uiJov~/pathvr terminology in 1.5.
8 Jesus exaltation is typically described as involving a confirmation of his existing position
and status, rather than conferral of a new status (A. H. I. Lee, From Messiah to Preexistent
Son: Jesus Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms [WUNT 2.192;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005] 276).
9 M. Barth, The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics, in Current
Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in honor of Otto A. Piper (ed. W. Klassen and
G. F. Snyder; New York: Harper, 1962) 5378, 26373 (62). As to the actual name of God, which
is left unspecified in 2.1213, the wealth of family terms and imagery in the surrounding con-
text leaves little option other than the name Father.
10 H. W. Attridge, Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 90. In the LXX ajpaggevllw
is used frequently in the proclamation of someones name or identity (Gen 12.18; 29.12; 43.7;
Exod 18.6; Judg 13.6; 2 Sam 2.4; 7.11; 1 Kgs 1.20; Neh 7.61; Esth 2.10; Isa 30.7; Wis 6.22). Because
Ps 22 repeatedly appears in the passion narratives (e.g. Matt 27.35, 39, 43, 46; Jn 19.24), many
have concluded that the same setting is intended here; see, e.g., C. Spicq, Lptre aux
Hbreux (tudes Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 19523) 2:29, 412; S. Kistemaker, The Psalm
118 scott d. mackie

second text placed on the Sons lips, Isa 8.1718, combines an expression of trust
in God with an affirmation of the recipients membership in the family of God:
ejgw; e[somai pepoiqw;~ ejp aujtw/`, kai; pavlin: ijdou; ejgw; kai; ta; paidiva a{ moi e[dwken
oJ qeov~ (2.13).11 That the Sons three confessions of the Fatherhood of God in 2.1213
are perfectly balanced by three matching expressions of his identification with
humanity is illustrative of the basic inseparability of doctrine and exhortation in
Hebrews.12
Corresponding to the flow of events in 1.5, a change in addressees in 2.13 sig-
nals once more the implied presence of the recipients in the drama. The second
person pronouns of 2.12, representing the Sons address to the Father, are
replaced by a third person pronoun in 2.13, indicating the Son has transferred his
attention to the ejkklhsiva.13 Moreover, the pronouncements of familial related-
ness in 2.1213 are the first thing the actor Jesus says in direct address to the com-
munity in the epistle. We may envision Jesus first speaking to the Father, vowing
to make known his name to his brothers and sisters (2.12, toi`~ ajdelfoi`~ mou14)

Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: van Soest, 1961) 834; M. Rissi, Die
Theologie des Hebrerbriefs. Ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser
(WUNT 41; Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987) 60; R. Gheorghita, The Role of the
Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use
of Hab 2:34 in Heb 10:3738 (WUNT 2.160; Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2003) 63.
However, the celebratory activity of hymnic praise (uJmnevw) seems out of place in the grim
starkness of the passion. And certainly a more explicit portion of the same psalm could have
been employed had this been the authors intent. Though the passion is inferred throughout
2.518 (especially 2.910, 14, 1718), the greater burden of this passage is to establish the extent
of Jesus identification with humanity.
11 See Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 645, for a discussion of the possible
textual sources underlying 2.13.
12 B. Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1991) 2, aptly states: Hebrews is a work of persuasion from start to finish.
Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice, 46, remarks: The book is conceived and written as a whole,
the hortatory passages so fully involved with the theological thought as to seem to create it.
13 P. S. Minear, An Early Christian Theopoetic? Semeia 12 (1978) 20113, traces the genesis of
2.1213 to a christophany experienced by the author. His vision of Jesus standing in the midst
of the ecclesia is characterized by a triangular conversation, with Jesus speaking to God
and the congregation. This poetic vision is designed to induct his listeners into the pres-
ence of the risen Lord (2035). Minear, however, fails to connect this declaration of the risen
Jesus with the corresponding speech of God in 1.5 and the paradigmatic significance of both
speeches for the later exhortations to confess the Son (3.16; 4.1416; 10.1925). See also P. M.
Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context (SBLDS 156;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 11213.
14 Regarding the use of ajdelfov~ in the NT, J. H. Elliott (The Jesus Movement Was Not
Egalitarian But Family-Oriented, BibInt 11.2 [2003] 173210), observes: Reference to sisters in
the faith is implied when brothers in the faith are addressed. This implied inclusion is a con-
sequence of the perception of ancient patriarchal societies that all honorable females were
socially embedded in, and under the tutelage of, honorable males (177).
 Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews 119

and to praise him in the midst of the congregation. Then, turning to address his
siblings, Jesus declares his trust in the Father, and expresses gratitude for the chil-
dren (ta; paidiva) entrusted to his care (2.13).

Language of Belonging and Identification

The language of belonging and identification permeates the second chap-

ter of Hebrews. By means of this language, the reality of the Sons declaration of
family relatedness is reinforced. Seven instances of familial terminology occur in
2.1018: pollou;~ uiJou;~ (2.10); ajdelfouv~ (2.11); toi`~ ajdelfoi`~ mou (2.12); ta; paidiva
. . . moi (2.13); ta; paidiva (2.14); ajdelfoi`~; laou` (2.17). The language and imagery of
identification is even more pervasive: uJpe;r panto;~ (2.9); to;n ajrchgo;n th`~
swthriva~ aujtw`n (2.10); o{ te aJgiavzwn kai; oiJ aJgiazovmenoi ejx eJno;~ pavnte~ (2.11);
ejkklhsiva (2.12); koinwnevw / metevcw (2.14); ejpilambavnomai (2.16); oJmoiovw (2.17);
pevponqen aujto;~ peirasqeiv~, duvnatai toi`~ peirazomevnoi~ bohqh`sai (2.18).
The generative core of this complex of mutuality and identification can be
traced to the initial designation of God as di o}n ta; pavnta kai; di ou| ta; pavnta, the
source and teleological goal of all humanity,15 who desires that many children be
led to glory (2.10, pollou;~ uiJou;~ eij~ dovxan ajgagovnta).16 Furthermore, our author
considers it fitting (prevpw) that this task should be accomplished in the perfec-
tion through sufferings (dia; paqhmavtwn teleiw`sai) of the founder of salvation
(to;n ajrchgo;n th`~ swthriva~). This motif is resumed in 2.17, where it is said that the
Son was obligated (ojfeivlw) to fully incorporate himself into humanity, so as to
inform his merciful and faithful high priesthood (i{na ejlehvmwn gevnhtai kai;
pisto;~ ajrciereu;~) with the requisite sympathy for the human condition.17 These
remarkable appeals to propriety and necessity forestall any objections lodged
against the offence of the cross by pointing to the logic behind Christs full identi-
fication with humanity.18 Koester also believes the appeal in 2.10 addresses the

15 Both prepositional phrases occur in Philo Cherubim 1257.

16 Cf. Platos contention that the origin of all matter is traceable to the demiurge having led
order out of disorder (Timaeus 30A, eij~ tavxin aujto; h[gagen ejk th`~ ajtaxiva~). This disor-
der/order polarity finds its complement in Hebrews account of the present state of human-
ity (2.7), and the arc of the Christ event (2.710). The probability of our author having
deliberately harnessed this Platonic passage in his program statement (2.10) increases with
recognition of its importance to Philo. Cf. Creation 89, 212, 28; Planting 3, 5; Heir 1334, 140,
157, 160.
17 Similar appeals to logical propriety appear in 7.26 (prevpw) and the closely related references
to necessity (ajnavgkh) in 7.12, 27; 9.16, 23.
18 Spicq, Hbreux, 1:53, notes that arguments appealing to divine propriety are inconnu de la
Bible. J. W. Thompson, The Appropriate, the Necessary, and the Impossible: Faith and
Reason in Hebrews, in The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson
(ed. A. J. Malherbe, F. W. Norris and J. W. Thompson; NovTSup 90; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 30217,
draws attention to the incongruity of this appeal within the ancient context, where the
120 scott d. mackie

central question motivating the epistle, namely whether God will bring people to
the glory for which he created them.19
Adelfov~, the most prominent familial term, occurs three times in the course of
the immediate exposition (2.11, 12, 17). This terms strategic employment elsewhere
in the epistle indicates its importance to the author. It appears in both his first and
final direct addresses to the recipients (3.1; 13.22), and at the head of his most emo-
tional exhortation and warning (10.1931). Fictive usage of ajdelfov~ can trace its ori-
gins to the Jesus tradition,20 and forms the core of Pauls understanding of the
church, as a society of siblings.21 A relative short supply of comparably aged, true
siblings in Greco-Roman families would no doubt contribute to the power and
attraction this term possessed.22 Finally, all three occurrences of ajdelfov~ in the
second chapter appear in relation to Jesus, the brother of the community. The
depth of this portrayal of Jesus as brother is perhaps unparalleled in the NT, and was
quite possibly influenced by Greco-Roman conventions of ideal brotherhood.23
Also of note is uiJov~, applied to the recipients in 2.10 and six times in 12.511,
where the sons and daughters are exhorted to follow the same filial pattern
established by Jesus (12.12). While both Jesus and the recipients have received an
education in humiliation and shame at the hands of their oppressors (12.24;
10.3234), this ill treatment served the greater purpose of God, defining and refin-
ing allegiance to God.24

association of God with human suffering would have been abhorrent (305). A. C. Mitchell,
The Use of prevpein and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews 2:10, CBQ 54 (1992) 681701 (6823,
6947), locates the core of the authors rhetorical strategy in his emphasis upon the propri-
ety of Gods involvement in Jesus representative sufferings and glorification.
19 Koester, Hebrews, 291. Minear, An Early Christian Theopoetic?, 211, finds the promise of
imminent glorification reinforced by the resurrected Lords presence in the ejkklhsiva in
2.1213.
20 And looking at those who sat around him, he said, Here are my mother and brothers! For
whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother (Mark
3.3435).
21 See S. S. Bartchy, Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Pauls Vision of a Society of
Siblings, BTB 29 (Summer 1999) 6878; Elliott, The Jesus Movement, 173210.
22 B. Rawson, The Roman Family in Recent Research: State of the Question, BibInt 11.2
(2003) 11938, remarks: Few of our sources evoke a picture of a household full of brothers
and sisters in the way that some more modern sources do. If in Roman families close sibling
relationships were more rare, that might, of course, have made them more precious (129).
23 See the extended discussion in P. Gray, Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-
Roman Critiques of Superstition (Academia Biblica 16; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2003) 12538, where Plutarchs On Brotherly Love is profitably compared with Hebrews
portrayal of Jesus as brother.
24 N. C. Croy, Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12:113 in its Rhetorical, Religious, and
Philosophical Context (SNTSMS 98; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998) 220, argues that
12.111 depicts a non-punitive view of suffering. The author of Hebrews considers suffering
educative, for the paideiva of 12.111 offers an education into sonship.
 Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews 121

Perhaps to an even greater degree than the familial language, the language of
identification is inseparably interwoven with the benefits of familial relatedness
conferred by the Son upon his siblings.25 He has tasted death on behalf of all (2.9,
uJpe;r pantov~) and is the pioneer of their salvation (2.10). Because the one sanc-
tifying and those being sanctified share the same heavenly parent, Jesus is not
ashamed to publicly identify them as his siblings (2.11, oujk ejpaiscuvnetai
ajdelfou;~ aujtou;~ kalei`n).26 They are the ejkklhsiva (2.12), presently sharing in the
glory of the exaltation drama in the heavenly sanctuary.27 And as they have par-
taken (koinwnevw) of all that pertains to the human condition, so their brother
Jesus has likewise partaken (paraplhsivw~ metevscen) in the human condition,
so that in dying, he might destroy the one who has the power of death oJ
diavbolo~ (2.14) and release (ajpallavssw) his siblings from their enslaving fear
of death (2.15).28 The Son has taken an interest (2.16, ejpilambavnomai) in the
spevrmato~ Abraa;m, becoming like them in every respect (2.17, kata; pavnta toi`~
ajdelfoi`~ oJmoiwqh`nai). He has become a fully sympathetic high priest, effica-
ciously expiating (iJlavskomai) the sins of the people (2.17, ta;~ aJmartiva~ tou`
laou`). Finally, in his sufferings he was tested and is now able to help those who
are similarly tested (2.18).29
In the short span of just fourteen verses, 2.518, our author intermingles and
colors his Son of God Christology with no less than five other Christologies: (1)
Adam (2.611); (2) pioneer of salvation (2.10); (3) Christus Victor (2.1416); (4)
Isaianic Sin-bearer (2.9, 17); (5) high priest (2.1718). Present as well are three of the
primary NT interpretations of Christs death: (1) a sacrifice for sins; (2) Christus
Victor; (3) an example. These diverse depictions work together to demonstrate the
reality of Jesus full identification with humanity, and the efficacy of his identifi-
cation to convey many siblings to glory.30 Indeed, these fourteen verses are suf-
fused with proofs and reminders that despite their ignominious earthly

25 G. W. Grogan, The Old Testament Concept of Solidarity in Hebrews, TynBul 49:1 (1998)
15973, notes: In Hebrews the consequences of solidarity are almost all conceived of as
blessing (171).
26 The seven appearances of aJgiavzw in Hebrews constitute 25% of the total NT usage. Cf. Lev
20.8, ejgw; kuvrio~ oJ aJgiavzwn uJma`~.
27 Their implied presence here in the heavenly sanctuary may be equated with presence in the
panegyric heavenly Jerusalem in 12.2224 (cf. 12.22: proselhluvqate, you have come).
28 Cf. Wis 2.2324: For God created us for immortality . . . but the envy of the devil brought
death into the world, and those who are in his possession experience it.
29 P. Balla, The ChildParent Relationship in the New Testament and its Environments (WUNT
155; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 210, believes 2.18 represents the goal of 2.518. He
thereby mistakenly limits the purpose of the family imagery in 2.518 to providing comfort.
30 See C. R. Koester, Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity, CBQ 64.1 (2002) 10323
(123); K. Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon
(Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2003) 256.
122 scott d. mackie

circumstances (cf. 10.3234), and the uncertainty of their eschatological

situation (cf. 1.13; 2.89), the siblings are well along the path towards heavenly
dovxa.

The Proper Response of the Community: Sacral and Public Confession

of the Son

Ultimately, a single purpose controls the authors elaborate invocation of

the Sons exaltation in the heavenly sanctuary: to induce the recipients to enter
into and participate in the heavenly drama by making a sacral confession com-
mensurate with the Sons declarations of their familial relationship. The author
brings his drama to a climax and stakes his entire presentation on the power
inherent within this symbolic act of confession to actualize the recipients sense
of familial relatedness. This liminal experience should serve to solidify their
resolve to confess publicly and identify with the Son of God and his family.
To elicit this response, the author first constructs a semantic structure, a field
of meaning (3.16, 14), which is then carried forward into a pair of invocations of
the heavenly sanctuary (4.1416; 10.1925). These latter two passages, recognized
by Weiss to be decisive control centers in the epistles hortatory strategy,31 exhort
the recipients to participate in the sacred drama through the use of cultic entry
terminology (4.14; 10.22, prosevrcomai; 10.19, eij~ th;n ei[sodon tw`n aJgivwn). The
preparatory section (3.16, 14), though lacking entry terminology, is joined to the
other two passages by an interlocking web of significations. Maintaining the lan-
guage of mutual identification and participation (3.1, 14, mevtoco~; 4.14; 10.19, e[cw;
4.15, dunavmenon sumpaqh`sai tai`~ ajsqeneivai~ hJmw`n, pepeirasmevnon de; kata;
pavnta kaq oJmoiovthta; 10.19, ajdelfov~; 10.20, h}n ejnekaivnisen hJmi`n; 10.24, ajll-
hvlwn; 10.25, th;n ejpisunagwgh;n eJautw`n), these three passages uniformly call for a
confident and firm (3.6; 4.16; 10.19, parrhsiva; 3.14, bevbaio~) holding fast (3.6, 14;
10.23, katevcw; 4.14, kratevw) to the confession (3.1; 4.14; 10.23, oJmologiva), boast
(3.6, kauvchma) and conviction (3.14, uJpovstasi~) of Jesus sonship (3.26; 4.1416;
10.21, 23). That the use of the key terms, oJmologiva, parrhsiva, kratevw and kat-
evcw, is almost entirely restricted to these three contexts is further indication of the
authors deliberate intent.
The semantic groundwork is first laid in 3.16, 14. The key theme of the pre-
ceding chapter, familial relatedness, is subsumed within the imagery of the divine

31 H.-F. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebrer. bersetzt und Erklrt (KEK 13; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1991) 52. G. H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis
(NovTSup 73; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 81, demonstrates that 4.1416 and 10.1923 constitutes a
structural inclusio.
 Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews 123

household (3.26 [six times], oi\ko~).32 The author directly addresses the ajdelfoi;
a{gioi for the first time in the epistle, and exhorts them to consider the apostle
and high priest of our confession, Jesus. Despite this initial designation of their
oJmologiva in 3.1 as to;n ajpovstolon kai; ajrciereva, a sonship Christology predomi-
nates, expressed in the Sons faithfulness over the household of God (3.6).33 This
passage, 3.16, can be linked to the closely following parallel passage, 3.14: as the
partakers (mevtoco~)34 of the heavenly calling (3.1) and of Christ (3.14), the recipi-
ents are commended to confidently (3.6) and firmly (3.14) hold fast (3.6, 14, kat-
evcw) to their boast (3.6) and conviction (3.14).
The language and imagery of 3.16, 14 undergirds the authors first hortatory
invocation of the heavenly sanctuary drama, in 4.1416. The recipients are at last
invited to participate in the drama, by means of a bold approach (4.16, proser-
cwvmeqa . . . meta; parrhsiva~) to the throne of grace. This depiction of dynamic
approach contrasts with the static hold fast (4.14, kratevw) imagery that charac-
terizes their oJmologiva (4.14).35 And again, as in 3.16, high priest and Son of God
Christologies intermingle (4.14, Econte~ ou\n ajrciereva mevgan . . . Ihsou`n to;n
uiJo;n tou` qeou`), though this time the corresponding imagery is evenly divided
between these two disparate portrayals. He is successively the sympathetic high
priest (4.15) and the merciful and gracious Son ruling from Gods throne (4.16).36
Thus this passage reflects both conceptual realms, regnal and cultic.

32 C. L. Westfall, Moses and Hebrews 3:16: Approach or Avoidance?, in ChristianJewish

Relations Through the Centuries (ed. S. E. Porter and B. W. R. Pearson; JSNTSup 192; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 2000) 175201 (193), finds a semantic chain linking 3.16 to ch. 2: a{gioi
(3.1) and oiJ aJgiazovmenoi (2.11); ajdelfov~ (3.1/2.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17); mevtocoi (3.1) and metevcw
(2.14). The heavenly calling of 3.1 may be equated with the fulfillment of Ps 8 in Jesus in
2.910. Westfall fails to connect the evkklhsiva in 2.12 with the oi\ko~ in 3.16. Dunnill,
Covenant and Sacrifice, 32, considers the image of the oi\ko~ to be the primary literal and
metaphorical description of the church as the end-time community. So also Elliott, The
Jesus Movement, 205: The household provided one of the chief models, if not the root
metaphor, for depicting the communal identity, unity, intimacy, and loyalty of the believer
in relation to God, Jesus Christ, and one another.
33 Attridge, Hebrews, 110.
34 The concepts of partaking and sharing recur in the epistle. In addition to these two instances
(3.1, 14), mevtoco~ denotes the recipients experience as partakers of the Holy Spirit (6.4) and
the paideiva of God (12.8). The Son has partaken of the human condition (2.14, metevcw). The
recipients share flesh and blood (2.14, koinwnevw) and as partners (10.33, koinwnov~) with
the persecuted church they should share in their sufferings. They will also share in their
heavenly Fathers holiness (12.10, metalambavnw) should they submit to his paideiva.
35 Attridge, Hebrews, 212.
36 T. Eskola, Messiah and Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Discourse
(WUNT 2.142; Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001) 2514, equates the throne with the
mercy seat and contends that an entirely cultic milieu is envisaged here. However, all three
other occurrences of qrovno~ (1.8; 8.1; 12.2) appear to be evoking the regnal exaltation, with the
latter two verses clearly dependent upon Ps 110.1. This subsumption of the throne into the
124 scott d. mackie

In the second invocation of the heavenly sanctuary drama, 10.1925, a cultic

context appears to dominate the symbolic landscape. The recipients are
reminded of their conclusive sanctification (10.22, rJerantismevnoi ta;~ kardiva~
ajpo; suneidhvsew~ ponhra`~ kai; lelousmevnoi to; sw`ma u{dati kaqarw/)` , through
the self-offering of Jesus the great priest (10.1921, ejn tw/` ai{mati Ihsou`, . . . th`~
sarko;~ aujtou` . . . iJereuv~ mevga~), which allows their confident entry into the holi-
est place in the heavenly sanctuary (10.19, parrhsivan eij~ th;n ei[sodon tw`n aJgivwn;
10.21, ejnekaivnisen hJmi`n oJdo;n . . . dia; tou` katapetavsmato~; 10.22, prosevrcomai).
The range of this approach terminology has been typically circumscribed to
denote approach, but not attainment.37 However, recognition of the role it plays
in the drama demands some manner of experiential presence in the heavenly
sanctuary.38 In fact, the exhortation to enter the holy place in 10.1925 constitutes
a climactic conclusion to a lengthy argument begun in 9.6. The impeded access
frustrating the efficacy of the Levitical cult (9.611; 10.14) has been unfavorably
contrasted with the efficacious entry of Christ (9.1214, 24; 10.1114) and the free
access he now provides.39
A high priest Christology might then be presupposed by the pervasive cultic
imagery found in 10.1925. Moreover, the sole explicit designation of Jesus in this
passage refers to him as the great priest (10.21). However, in this same verse, 10.21,
and again in 10.23, the author draws upon the primary semantic context of 3.16,

mercy seat underestimates the import of the enthronement of Jesus for the author. See R.
Bauckham, The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus, in The Jewish Roots of
Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins
of the Worship of Jesus (ed. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila and G. S. Lewis; SJSJ 63; Leiden: Brill,
1999), 4369 (647). D. A. deSilva, Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and
PatronClient Relationships, JBL 115 (1996) 91116, believes throne refers by metonymy to
the One seated on the throne (100).
37 Those mitigating the language of approach include: J. M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests:
Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 49; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991) 127,
149; M. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992) 219; D. A. deSilva, Entering Gods Rest:
Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews, TJ 21 (2000) 2543 (28).
38 C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls
(STDJ 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002) xii, calls into question constructions of Second Temple worship
that rigidly divide the earthly and heavenly spheres. He proposes two interlocking hypothe-
ses: (1) the theology of ancient Judaism took for granted the belief that in its original, true,
redeemed state humanity is divine (and/or angelic), and that (2) this belief was conceptually
and experientially inextricable from temple worship in which ordinary space and time, and
therefore human ontology, are transcended because the true temple is a model of the uni-
verse which offers its entrants a transfer from earth to heaven, from humanity to divinity and
from mortality to immortality.
39 This has already been implied in 2.10; 4.111; and especially 6.1920, where Jesus is referred to
as the forerunner (provdromo~) who has entered the the inner shrine behind the curtain
for us (uJpe;r hJmw`n).
 Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews 125

14, and in so doing implicitly invokes his Son of God Christology. Though in 10.21
Jesus is called the great priest over the household of God (iJereva mevgan ejpi; to;n
oi\kon tou` qeou`), the lengthy discussion of the household of God in 3.16 con-
cludes with the assertion that Jesus sonship forms the basis for his rule over the
household (ejpi; to;n oi\kon). In 10.23, the faithfulness of the one who has prom-
ised (pisto;~ oJ ejpaggeilavmeno~), namely Jesus, provides both the model and
impetus for the recipients unwavering confession of hope (th;n oJmologivan th`~
ejlpivdo~ ajklinh`). In 3.6, it is Jesus faithfulness as a son that both proves his supe-
riority over Moses and establishes the surety of the recipients firmly held bold-
ness and boast of hope (th;n parrhsivan kai; to; kauvchma th`~ ejlpivdo~
katavscwmen). These verses, 10.21, 23, would then appear to connect the recipients
confession to sonship Christology. Although pisto;~ oJ ejpaggeilavmeno~ in 10.23
may refer to God, who has been previously described as a promise maker in
6.1318, and will again be designated as such in 11.11 and 12.26, in this instance the
referent is undoubtedly Jesus. The reciprocative contours of 10.23 the unwaver-
ing confession of hope responding to the faithfulness of the promise maker
vividly encapsulates the intended goal of the whole drama: the confession of
Jesus sonship in response to his conferral of familial relatedness (2.1213). The
final two verses in this passage, 10.2425, further extend the familial dimensions of
their confession, exhorting the recipients not to neglect their gatherings (mh;
ejgkataleivponte~ th;n ejpisunagwgh;n eJautw`n), which provide vital opportunities
to consider (katanoevw) and encourage (parakalevw) one another (ajll-
hvlwn).40

The Content and Nature of the Communitys Confession

The content and nature of the recipients oJmologiva has been the source of
much debate. Appeal to the sole unequivocal designation and description of that
confession, in 13.15, reveals that his name (tw/| ojnovmati aujtou`) is the content and
a spiritualized cultic sacrifice of praise (ajnafevrwmen qusivan aijnevsew~) describes
the nature of the confession.41 Although the content of the confession appears to
be oJ qeov~, the authors failure to designate a specific name for God in the previous

40 Throughout this passage, the recipients identity as the family of God is reinforced with ter-
minology (10.19, ajdelfov~; 10.20, hJmi`n; 10.24, ajllhvlwn; 10.25, th;n ejpisunagwgh;n eJautw`n) and
a string of first person plural subjunctives (10.22, prosercwvmeqa; 10.23, katevcwmen; 10.24,
katanow`men).
41 13.15, Di aujtou` ou\n ajnafevrwmen qusivan aijnevsew~ dia; panto;~ tw/` qew/`, tou`t e[stin karpo;n
ceilevwn oJmologouvntwn tw/` ojnovmati aujtou`. That this verse provides the essential definition
of the activity of confession is recognized by Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebrerbriefs, 47.
Attridge, God in Hebrews, 208, however, deems it the response of the recipients to the
divine promise of 13.5: I will never leave you or forsake you.
126 scott d. mackie

twelve chapters signals the implausibility of this designation.42 Nowhere in

Hebrews do we encounter anything akin to Pauls pneumatological cry, Abba,
Father! (Rom 8.15; Gal 4.6). To commend an imprecise confession of oJ qeov~ at this
late stage would be strangely inconsistent with the authors christologically
focused hortatory strategy. In addition to the sonship emphasis within the decis-
ive control centers (4.1416; 10.1925), misconceptions and mis-confessions of
the Son of God are diagnosed in the two key warning passages, 6.48 and 10.2631,
as the non plus ultra of apostasy. Furthermore, this undesignated confession, tw/`
ojnovmati aujtou`, seems intentionally to recall the beginning of the exaltation
drama (1.5), where the superior name of 1.4 is revealed as Son.43 And while some
have argued for the inseparability of the high priest and sonship Christologies in
the confession,44 as they are often seamlessly coordinated (e.g. 4.1416), the Son of
God Christology is in every way antecedent to the high priestly Christology.45

42 Those arguing that Gods name is in view include F. Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung: Die
parnetische Funktion der Christologie im Hebrerbrief (BU 15; Regensburg: Pustet, 1980) 43;
Attridge, Hebrews, 401; E. Grsser, An Die Hebrer (Hebr 10,1913,25) (EKKNT 17/3; Zurich:
Benziger; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1997) 391; Koester, Hebrews, 572. Weiss, Hebrer,
742, also believes that 13.15 reflects a community confession of God, though one that is chris-
tologically grounded and mediated. E. Ksemann, The Wandering People of God: An
Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984) 169, considers
Kyrios Jesus the focus of the confession in 13.15.
43 Arguing for the priority of Jesus sonship in the confession are W. L. Lane, Hebrews 18 (WBC
47A; Dallas: Word, 1991) 75; Koester, Hebrews, 126, 450.
44 Weiss, Hebrer, 293, contends that the high priest and Son of God Christologies are identical
in the communitys confession. Similarly asserting their inseparability in the confession are
Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung, 1415; W. R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine tradi-
tionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebrerbriefes (WMANT 53;
NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1981) 2068. E. Grsser, An die Hebrer (Hebr 16) (EKKNT
17/1; Zurich: Benziger; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1990) 251, perhaps over-generalizes
in his conclusion that Jesus himself forms the content of the confession. O. Michel,
oJmologevw, oJmologiva, ktl, TDNT 5:21516, argues that the oJmologiva of Hb. is a firmly out-
lined, liturgically set tradition by which the community must abide. Attridge, Hebrews, 289,
stands on firmer ground with his assertion that the whole interpretive program of Hebrews
indicates that our author knows that the content of a confession must be ever reinterpreted
in order to be preserved. The intricacies of his high priest Christology and the recasting of
the Sons exaltation into a participatory drama both provide proof of the authors creative
and practical adaptations of confessional traditions. J. W. Thompson, Hebrews 5:1114 and
Greek Paideia, in his The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews
(CBQMS 13; Washington, DC.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982) 1740 (31),
thus correctly characterizes 7.110.19 as an expansion of the confession.
45 The logic of 5.56 seems to indicate that the Fathers declaration of Jesus high priesthood is
dependent upon a prior declaration of sonship. This passage may reflect the genesis of
Hebrews high priest Christology, as the author employs gezerah shavah to link the divine
declaration of sonship in Ps 2.7 with the declaration of priesthood in Ps 110.4. The two psalms
share the pronoun suv, and a certain measure of assonance attends the first phrase in each
 Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews 127

That the act of confession is depicted in 13.15 as a spiritualized cultic sacrifice

of praise provides insight into the nature of the two exhortations to enter the
heavenly sanctuary (4.1416; 10.1925). Though these exhortations to make entry
have often been interpreted as advocating prayer,46 the activity described in 13.15
is clearly confessional in nature. And while the substantive oJmologiva, employed
in all the previous contexts (3.1; 4.14; 10.23), may denote either the content or the
act of confession, the immediate proximity of the verbal form of the term
(oJmologevw) to the content of the confession (tw/` ojnovmati aujtou) in 13.15 suggests
both senses, act and content, are intended in 4.14 and 10.23.47
The authors exhortation to offer unceasingly this confession (13.15, dia;
pantov~48), when connected with the static terminology (kratevw, katevcw) in the
sacral confessions of 4.14 and 10.23, provides further insight into the nature of the
exhortation. As the recipients have long been convinced of Jesus divine sonship,
a single, first-time confession is not in view. Rather, what is envisaged is an ongo-
ing orientation toward sonship confession.49 A general setting, one of communal
worship, is therefore preferred over a specific setting, whether eucharistic or bap-
tismal.50 The phrase dia; pantov~ may also extend the range of this exhortation
beyond the sacral milieu, to the public sphere, thus denoting an unwavering
stance of public identification with Jesus the Son of God. As the Son confessed the
Father in both word and deed,51 so also the recipients will see their familial relat-

quotation: uiJov~ mou ei\ suv and su; iJereuv~. The most obvious point of contact between the
two verses is the conceptualization of a regal conferral of status. See Gheorghita, The Role of
the Septuagint in Hebrews, 54; Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 208. Furthermore, that Jesus the
high priest is never the object of worship may also point to a hierarchy of Christologies in
Hebrews.
46 D. G. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982) 79; Lane,
Hebrews, 115; Koester, Hebrews, 284, 449. Both Scholer (Proleptic Priests, 1078, 11012) and
Gray (Godly Fear, 144) argue that the activity of prayer solely underlies the imagery of 4.1416,
while admitting communal worship may also be present in 10.1925 (Scholer, Proleptic
Priests, 128; Gray, Godly Fear, 147).
47 Attridge, Hebrews, 108.
48 The priestly duties in the first tent are also performed dia; pantov~ (9.6).
49 Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung, 234, believes the exhortation to hold fast to the confession
is the paraenetic center of gravity for the letter.
50 Grsser, Hebrer (Hebr 16), 251. Though baptismal language and imagery undoubtedly
inform 10.22, R. Williamson (The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews, NTS 21 [197475]
30012) has convincingly demonstrated the improbability of finding eucharistic faith or prac-
tice within Hebrews.
51 See 5.79. Quite possibly the longest epistolary consideration of the historical Jesus, this pas-
sage is characterized by an intertwining of sonship and high priest Christologies. In 5.7, the
Son offers (prosfevrw) prayers and pleadings (dehvsei~ kai; iJkethriva~) with a loud cry
and tears. His status as Son is confirmed by the fact that because of his reverence
128 scott d. mackie

edness come to its fullest expression in the hostile public sphere (3.6, 14; 12.511),
responding to ajntilogiva with oJmologiva.52
Further indication of a dual setting for the confession is evident in the key term
parrhsiva, boldness, confidence. Characterizing both the confession (3.6) and
entry (4.16; 10.19), parrhsiva is also commended in a public context (10.35).53 Both
subjective and objective elements adhere to this terms use. It denotes an affective
state of confidence as well as the underlying beliefs that provide a lasting basis for
the confidence. Certainly both subjective and objective elements attend the
authors presentation of the high priestly achievement of Christ. They are equally
apparent in the Sons conferral of family membership, and the recipients
expected bold confession. And though both Christological presentations promote
confident sacral entry and confession, in a public milieu the sonship Christology
would be especially effective. The recipients sense of belonging in the family of
God would undoubtedly provide the surest footing in hostile circumstances
requiring bold identification with Jesus the Son of God.54

Conclusion

In his dramatic account of the Sons exaltation, the author of Hebrews

establishes a pattern of reciprocative confessions of familial belonging, modeled
successively by the Father and the Son. The remedy to the recipients waning
commitment is provided by their surprising inclusion in the cast of this sacred
action, as they are offered a speaking part in the unfolding drama. To the
Sons conferral of membership in the family of God, they are exhorted to offer a

(eujlavbeia), his pleadings were heard by the One able to save him from death (5.7). Sonship
Christology is prominent in 5.8, for although being a Son, Jesus is said to have learned obe-
dience from the things he suffered.
52 Cf. the exemplary behavior of Moses in 11.2426. The author focuses on Moses rejection of a
sonship associated with privilege and sin in favor of costly identification with the people of
God and the reproach of Christ.
53 A public context of confident testimony may also be envisioned in 3.6. So Attridge, Hebrews,
112; D. A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to
the Hebrews (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000) 139.
54 Locating the recipients parrhsiva solely in the high priestly work of Christ are Thompson,
Hebrews 5:1114 and Greek Paideia, 323; Attridge, Hebrews, 284; Weiss, Hebrer, 252, 298;
Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 1015, 59, 85, 113; Lane, Hebrews, 79, 11516,
283; A. C. Mitchell, Holding on to Confidence: PARRHSIA in Hebrews, in Friendship,
Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (ed. J.
T. Fitzgerald; NovTSup 82; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 20326 (217, 220, 2236). Recognizing the
importance of both high priest and Son of God Christologies to the recipients parrhsiva are
deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 336; Koester, Hebrews, 253. Though he acknowledges the
relationship of familial belonging and parrhsiva in his discussion of 3.16, Gray neglects it
entirely when treating 4.1416; 10.1925; and 10.35 (Godly Fear, 1401, 1438, 1545).
 Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews 129

reciprocative confession of familial mutuality and identification. Perhaps operat-

ing at an unconscious level in its appeal to the innate familial instincts of the
recipients, this potent exhortation addresses their deepest needs, providing the
surest basis for bold interaction with God the Father in the heavenly sanctuary,
and enduring, fearless identification with the Son and his family in a hostile world.
The preservation of this unique epistle perhaps testifies to its immediate and last-
ing success at forming and maintaining the family of God.